Well. How very very interesting.
The widening circle of retired generals who have stepped forward to call for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's resignation is shaping up as an unusual outcry that could pose a significant challenge to Mr. Rumsfeld's leadership, current and former generals said on Thursday.
Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack Jr., who led troops on the ground in Iraq as recently as 2004 as the commander of the Army's 82nd Airborne Division, on Thursday became the fifth retired senior general in recent days to call publicly for Mr. Rumsfeld's ouster. Also Thursday, another retired Army general, Maj. Gen. John Riggs, joined in the fray. "We need to continue to fight the global war on terror and keep it off our shores," General Swannack said in a telephone interview. "But I do not believe Secretary Rumsfeld is the right person to fight that war based on his absolute failures in managing the war against Saddam in Iraq."
Another former Army commander in Iraq, Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who led the First Infantry Division, publicly broke ranks with Mr. Rumsfeld on Wednesday. Mr. Rumsfeld long ago became a magnet for political attacks. But the current uproar is significant because Mr. Rumsfeld's critics include generals who were involved in the invasion and occupation of Iraq under the defense secretary's leadership....
[...] The White House has dismissed the criticism, saying it merely reflects tensions over the war in Iraq. There was no indication that Mr. Rumsfeld was considering resigning. "The president believes Secretary Rumsfeld is doing a very fine job during a challenging period in our nation's history," the White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, told reporters on Thursday.
Poor little Scottie. That job must be absolutely soul destroying at times, plus he's got to be a consummate actor. How else could he actually say that with a straight face?
Active duty officers wouldn't speak out like this, of course. Not only would it be thoroughly unwise in any normal employment situation to do so -- and this isn't precisely normal -- but given this administration's well deserved reputation for lashing out at those who disagree with it ... well. (I think active duty officers are in fact legally barred from speaking out against policy, in any event.)
Thing is, even if everything they say about Rumsfeld and the administration is true -- that they micromanage the war in Iraq and disregard advice from military commanders because it isn't politically expedient -- even if all that is true, the plain fact is that our military wasn't configured to handle a war of this scale when the conflict started. Where on earth, given current commitments, could they have pulled nearly 300,000 soldiers from to manage this occupation?
I do think that the military officers who are concerned about these calls for Rumsfeld's resignation are correct to be concerned. If the military is seen to have played any role in the downfall of a civilian administrator, that really doesn't bode well for keeping the military as far out of politics as it can be. It would be a direct challenge to civilian oversight. Reasonably speaking, even if the administration thought that it was time for Rumsfeld to go, they really would need to wait at least until all this died down, and more likely just sit and stick it out. The one thing this administration believes in is civilian oversight, as long as they're the overseers; they're not going to allow the professional military to dictate anything.
Posted by iain at April 14, 2006 11:37 AM
